# C_2007140EN.01000601.xml

| 23.6.2007 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 140/6 |
| --------- | -- | -------------------------------------- | ------- |

---

Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunalul Dâmboviţa (Romania) lodged on 24 January 2007 — Ministerul Administraţiei şi Internelor — Direcţia Generală de Paşapoarte Bucureşti v Gheorghe Jipa

(Case C-33/07)

(2007/C 140/10)

Language of the case: Romanian

Referring court

Tribunalul Dâmboviţa

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Ministerul Administraţiei şi Internelor — Direcţia Generală de Paşapoarte Bucureşti

Defendant: Gheorghe Jipa

Questions referred

| (1) | Must Article 18 EC (consolidated version published in OJ 2002 C 325 of 24.12.2002) be interpreted as meaning that the legislation in force in Romania (Articles 38 and 39 of Law 248/2005 on the conditions for the free movement of Romanian citizens abroad) places obstacles in the way of the free movement of persons? |
| --- | --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- |

| 2 | (a)
Do Articles 38 and 39 of Law 248/2005 (national legislation), which prevent a person (who is a Romanian citizen and, now, a citizen of the Union) from moving freely in another State (in this case, a Member State of the European Union), constitute an obstacle to the free movement of persons upheld by Article 18 EC? (b)
May a Member State of the European Union (in this case Romania) place a limitation on the exercise of the right of freedom of movement of citizens within the territory of another Member State? | (a) | Do Articles 38 and 39 of Law 248/2005 (national legislation), which prevent a person (who is a Romanian citizen and, now, a citizen of the Union) from moving freely in another State (in this case, a Member State of the European Union), constitute an obstacle to the free movement of persons upheld by Article 18 EC? | (b) | May a Member State of the European Union (in this case Romania) place a limitation on the exercise of the right of freedom of movement of citizens within the territory of another Member State? |
| --- | -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | --- | --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | --- | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ |
| (a) | Do Articles 38 and 39 of Law 248/2005 (national legislation), which prevent a person (who is a Romanian citizen and, now, a citizen of the Union) from moving freely in another State (in this case, a Member State of the European Union), constitute an obstacle to the free movement of persons upheld by Article 18 EC? | | | | |
| (b) | May a Member State of the European Union (in this case Romania) place a limitation on the exercise of the right of freedom of movement of citizens within the territory of another Member State? | | | | |

| 3 | (a)
Does the concept of ‘illegal residence’ used in the national provisions of Government Decree 825/2005 approving the Agreement between the Government of Romania, of the first part, and the Governments of the Kingdom of Belgium, of the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg and of the Kingdom of the Netherlands, of the other part, on the readmission of persons who are in an illegal situation (the provision on the basis of which the readmission of the defendant was ordered, his situation being that of ‘illegal residence’) fall within the grounds of ‘public policy’ or ‘public security’ provided for in Article 27 of Directive 2004/38/EEC,( 1 ) so that a restriction on the freedom of movement of such a person may be imposed? (b)
If the foregoing question is answered in the affirmative, must Article 27 of Directive 2004/38/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 29 April 2004 on the right of citizens of the Union and their family members to move and reside freely within the territory of the Member States be interpreted as meaning that the Member States may impose restrictions on the freedom of movement and residence of a citizen of the Union on grounds of ‘public policy’ and ‘public security’ automatically, without that person's ‘personal conduct’ being examined? | (a) | Does the concept of ‘illegal residence’ used in the national provisions of Government Decree 825/2005 approving the Agreement between the Government of Romania, of the first part, and the Governments of the Kingdom of Belgium, of the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg and of the Kingdom of the Netherlands, of the other part, on the readmission of persons who are in an illegal situation (the provision on the basis of which the readmission of the defendant was ordered, his situation being that of ‘illegal residence’) fall within the grounds of ‘public policy’ or ‘public security’ provided for in Article 27 of Directive 2004/38/EEC,( 1 ) so that a restriction on the freedom of movement of such a person may be imposed? | (b) | If the foregoing question is answered in the affirmative, must Article 27 of Directive 2004/38/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 29 April 2004 on the right of citizens of the Union and their family members to move and reside freely within the territory of the Member States be interpreted as meaning that the Member States may impose restrictions on the freedom of movement and residence of a citizen of the Union on grounds of ‘public policy’ and ‘public security’ automatically, without that person's ‘personal conduct’ being examined? |
| --- | --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | --- | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | --- | --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- |
| (a) | Does the concept of ‘illegal residence’ used in the national provisions of Government Decree 825/2005 approving the Agreement between the Government of Romania, of the first part, and the Governments of the Kingdom of Belgium, of the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg and of the Kingdom of the Netherlands, of the other part, on the readmission of persons who are in an illegal situation (the provision on the basis of which the readmission of the defendant was ordered, his situation being that of ‘illegal residence’) fall within the grounds of ‘public policy’ or ‘public security’ provided for in Article 27 of Directive 2004/38/EEC,( 1 ) so that a restriction on the freedom of movement of such a person may be imposed? | | | | |
| (b) | If the foregoing question is answered in the affirmative, must Article 27 of Directive 2004/38/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 29 April 2004 on the right of citizens of the Union and their family members to move and reside freely within the territory of the Member States be interpreted as meaning that the Member States may impose restrictions on the freedom of movement and residence of a citizen of the Union on grounds of ‘public policy’ and ‘public security’ automatically, without that person's ‘personal conduct’ being examined? | | | | |

---

( 1 )  OJ L 158, p. 77.

---